Someone could have " impeccable credentials" and be a loyal subject and sometime in the future become horrified by what occurs and then have a crisis of conscience?

How about an example of that, Stamper? From what I've read over a period of about 75 years the "crisis of conscience" is something that happens with communists who wake up -- like Whittaker Chambers. People like Alger Hiss and your Cambridge Five all were dedicated communists from the get-go. Snowden is no different.

Well, there's that too. But to be a socialist you have to be stupid enough to ignore history altogether. The socialist mind is convinced that if reality doesn't fit theory then reality has to be wrong; theory couldn't possibly be wrong. I see it all the time. That thinking has done incalculable damage for millennia and continues unfazed by perpetual failure.

Well, there's that too. But to be a socialist you have to be stupid enough to ignore history altogether. The socialist mind is convinced that if reality doesn't fit theory then reality has to be wrong; theory couldn't possibly be wrong. I see it all the time. That thinking has done incalculable damage for millennia and continues unfazed by perpetual failure.

The most puzzling thing, to my eyes, is that the old attempt to polarize people against each other through artificial simplifaction of a multi-facetted reality into a childish opposition between one good and one bad still works.

Socialism doesn't mean anything or it means many different thing to different people. For most Europeans, it is mostly a common decision to set a lower limit to the acceptable living standart in developped countries by embedding charity in the system and making it compulsory to help others. It is nothing but the result of our Christian history that puts helping others at the core of our system of values.

But anyway, it is not black and white, it is a continum. There is no reason to link environmentalism to socialism, they only get together because of the desire to antagonise.

The real debate is else where. We call our countries democracies, but the huge bias put on the system by a tiny numbers of wealthy influencers is the real debate that never takes place. The real question is who decides of the course of action of our countries.

How about an example of that, Stamper? From what I've read over a period of about 75 years the "crisis of conscience" is something that happens with communists who wake up -- like Whittaker Chambers. People like Alger Hiss and your Cambridge Five all were dedicated communists from the get-go. Snowden is no different.

Russ you obviously haven't read all of the thread. It would have been helpful if you had. I gave a very good example of that in Reply#9. The Israeli scientist jailed for telling the world about Israel's atomic secret.

I'm kind of doubtful about this story because the source is "The South China Post" - who's heard of that before today? I suppose if it is true, maybe he'll deny it or maybe he won't. But when you click through to the South China Post story, I landed on a page that included a feature story that is "LIFESTYLE Penis size does matter to women, say researchers." Ok, what reputable news source would bother linking a trashy story like that on their front page?

Again this uses the "South China Post" as the source for their material.

It would seem that someone is feeding that "newspaper" stories that they want the world to read about Snowden that are particularly damaging about him. To me it would appear that this website/newspaper is a propaganda piece for American interests because if it were Chinese, none of the stories that you see listed on its website would be there.

When I see stories in the New York Times or Washington Post that corroborate this with their own research then I'll be more inclined to accept it. But for now, it looks like trash from a trash mag.

The Snowden mystery deepens. He used to post often in the Ars Technica forums, where he espoused some very surprising ideas.

In 2009 he proclaimed that leakers of government secrets "should be shot." He applauded the U.S. government for using high tech to spy on its citizens.

He supported John McCain in 2008, and advocated getting rid of Social Security. This was all while he was stationed in Geneva and working for the CIA.

Or rather, Snowden is a human being that is continuing to evolve and learn about the world around him and he's not a person that has been cast in an iron mold from when they were a teenager.

All that the Ars Technica posts reveal is that is who he was then. Who he is now is different. Believe it or not, over time people can change. Maybe he's paid a lot of attention to what Manning did and has thought long and hard about what he could do to find and expose the US government overstepping. Or maybe he saw or experienced something else that had a profound affect on him. Who can say?

All we know is that is then and this is now.

Quote

Snowden is not who he appears to be on the surface.

Or rather he's a real human being, not just a drone, that continues to take in what he sees in the world around him, evaluates it for himself and makes his own independent decisions. For some people that only ever vote for one political party, only ever buy one brand of bread, etc, this might be a bit of a shock (that people can change/evolve.)

Russ you obviously haven't read all of the thread. It would have been helpful if you had. I gave a very good example of that in Reply#9. The Israeli scientist jailed for telling the world about Israel's atomic secret.

The most puzzling thing, to my eyes, is that the old attempt to polarize people against each other through artificial simplifaction of a multi-facetted reality into a childish opposition between one good and one bad still works...

+1

Quote

... It is nothing but the result of our Christian history that puts helping others at the core of our system of values...

Nothing new under the sun. The resistance to socialism is in essence a resistance to the most fundamental of all Christian values, which is generosity.

But again, this is not the main debate. The main debate should be that of what we call a democracy. Wherever you stand along the continuous scales from left to right along the many complex axis defining our human activities, you must be in favor of truly giving the power to the citizens to decide what kind of society they want to live in.

SNOWDEN: these are the same people who blew the whole “we could listen to osama’s cell phone” thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again [sic] Thank god they’re going out of business.

The other question that should be being asked here is "Is the US government acting with integrity?"

Obama campaigned on a platform that included protecting whistle-blowers so as expose government corruption and largess. The Whitehouse has since updated its position to no longer advocate whistleblowing:

Snowden isn't a disillusioned NSA employee. He's not a patriot acting out of a heightened sense of moral outrage. He isn't even a real whistleblower. He is, in fact, still working for the CIA, his "former" employer.

Anyone who takes Edward Snowden at face value is a fool and a patsy; they're playing into a very clever disinformation program.